V. I. Lenin

The Russian Revolution And Civil War

They Are Trying To Frighten Us With Civil War

Written:September 29, 1917First Published:1917 in Rabochy Put No. 12Source:Lenin’sCollected
	Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972,
      pp. 28-42Translated:Yuri Sdobnikov and George
      Hanna, Edited by George HannaTranscription & HTML Mark-up:Charles
    Farrell and David WaltersOnline Version:Lenin Internet ArchiveNovember,
    2000

The bourgeoisie, frightened by the refusal of the Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries to join a bloc with the Cadets, and by
      the probability of the democrats being quite capable of forming
      a government without them and governing Russia against them, are
      doing their best to intimidate the democrats.

Scare them as much as you can! This is the slogan of the whole
      bourgeois press. Scare them with all your might! Lie, slander,
      but frighten them!

Birzhevkadoes its scaring by fabricating news about Bolshevik
      activities. Others by spreading rumours about Alexeyev's
      resignation, and about the imminent German offensive against
      Petrograd, as if the facts do not prove that it is the Kornilov
      generals (to whom Alexeyev undoubtedly belongs) who are capable
      of opening the front to the Germans in Galicia and near Riga and
      near Petrograd, and that it is the Kornilov generals who are
      arousing the greatest hatred in the army against the General
      Staff.

To make this method of intimidating the democrats more "solid" and
      convincing, they refer to the danger of "civil war". Of all the
      methods of intimidation, that of scaring with civil war is
      perhaps the most widespread. Here is the way the
      Rostov-on-the-Don Committee of the people's freedom party
      formulated this widespread idea, heartily welcomed in philistine
      circles, in its resolution of September 1
      (RechNo. 210):

"The Committee is convinced that civil war may sweep away all
      the gains of the revolution and drown in rivers of blood our
      young, still unstable freedom, and is of the opinion that it is
      necessary to make an energetic protest against developing the
      revolution as proposed by the unrealisable socialist utopias if
      we are to save the gains of the revolution."

Here, the fundamental idea which is to be met with innumerable
      times inRecheditorials, in the articles of Plekhanov
      and Potresov, in the editorials of Menshevik papers, etc., etc.,
      is expressed in the clearest, most precise, well considered and
      substantial form. It will therefore be useful to take up this
      idea in greater detail.

Let us try to make a more concrete analysis of the civil war
      question, on the basis of the half year's experience of our
      revolution, among other things.

This experience, similarly to the experience of all European
      revolutions, from the end of the eighteenth century on shows
      that civil war is the sharpest form of the class struggle, it is
      that point in the class struggle when clashes and battles,
      economic and political, repeating themselves, growing,
      broadening, becoming acute, turn into an armed struggle of one
      class against another. More often than not—one may say
      almost always—in all more or less free and ~. advanced
      countries the civil war is between those classes whose
      antagonistic position towards each other is created and deepened
      by the entire economic development of capitalism, by the entire
      history of modern society the world over—civil war is
      between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

During the past half year of our revolution, we have experienced
      very strong spontaneous outbursts (April 20-21,[1]July 3-4) in
      which the proletariat came very close to starting a civil
      war. On the other hand, the Kornilov revolt was a military
      conspiracy supported by the landowners and capitalists led by
      the Cadet Party, a conspiracy by which the bourgeoisie has
      actually begun a civil war.

Such are the facts. Such is the history of our own
      revolution. More than anything we must learn from this history,
      we must give a great deal of thought to the course it has taken
      and to its class significance.

Let us try to compare the germs of the proletarian civil war and
      the bourgeois civil war in Russia from the standpoint of (1) the
      spontaneous nature of the movement; (2) its aims; (3) the
      political consciousness of the masses participating in it; (4)
      the forces in the movement; (5) its tenacity. We think that if
      all the parties which are now "unnecessarily throwing about" the
      words "civil war" were to approach the question in this way, and
      make a real attempt to study the germs of the civil war, the
      class-consciousness of the entire Russian revolution would gain
      a very great deal.

Let us begin with the spontaneous nature of the movement. For
      the July 3-4 movement we have the testimony of such witnesses as
      the MenshevikRabochaya
      Gazetaand the Socialist-RevolutionaryDyelo
      Narodawhich have recognised the spontaneous origin of the
      movement. This testimony I quoted in an article published inProletarskoye
      Dyeloand issued as a separate leaflet entitledAn Answer.

      For obvious
      reasons, however, the Mensheviks and the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are defending themselves and the
      part they played in persecuting the Bolsheviks, officially
      continue to deny the spontaneous nature of the outburst of July
      3-4.

Let us put the controversial matter aside for the present. Let
      us take what is undisputed. No one denies the spontaneous nature
      of the April 20-21 movement. The Bolshevik Party joined this
      spontaneous movement under the slogan "All Power to the
      Soviets"; independently of the Bolsheviks it was joined by the
      late Linde, who led 30,000 armed soldiers into the street ready
      to arrest the government. (The action of these troops, let us
      say in parenthesis, has not been investigated and studied. If it
      is examined closely, and April 20 is given its place in the
      historic sequence of events, i.e., if it is seen as a link in
      the chain which extends from February 28 to August 29, it
      becomes clear that the fault and the error of the Bolsheviks was
      the insufficient revolutionism of their tactics, and by no means
      the excessive revolutionism the philistines accuse us of.)

The spontaneous nature of the movement leading to the
      proletariat beginning civil war is thus beyond doubt. On the
      other hand, there is not even a trace of anything resembling
      spontaneity in the Kornilov revolt; it was merely a conspiracy
      of generals who hoped by fraud and by the force of military
      command to carry part of the army with them.

It is beyond all doubt that the spontaneity of the movement is
      proof that it is deeply rooted in the masses, that its roots are
      firm and that it is inevitable. The proletarian revolution is
      firmly rooted, the bourgeois counter-revolution is without
      roots—this is what the facts prove if examined from the
      point of view of the spontaneous nature of the movement.

Let us now look at the aims of the movement. The movement of
      April 20-21 came very close to adopting the Bolshevik slogans,
      whereas that of July 3-4 was directly connected with them, was
      under their influence and guidance. The Bolshevik Party spoke
      quite openly, definitely, clearly, precisely, for all to hear,
      in its papers and in verbal propaganda of the chiefaimsof the proletarian civil war—the dictatorship
      of the proletariat and the poor peasantry, peace and an
      immediate offer of peace, confiscation of the landed estates.

We all know the aims of the Kornilov revolt, and no one among
      the democrats disputes that those aims were a dictatorship of
      the landowners and the bourgeoisie, dispersal of the Soviets,
      and preparations for the restoration of the monarchy. The Cadet
      Party, this main Kornilovite party (by the way, it ought to be
      called from now on the Kornilov party), possesses a larger press
      and greater forces for propaganda than the Bolsheviks, but it
      has never dared and still does not dare to tell the people
      openly either about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or about
      the dispersal of the Soviets, or about the Kornilovite aims in
      general!

As far as the aims of the movement are concerned, the facts tell
      us that the proletarian civil war can come out with an open
      exposition of its final aims before the people and win the
      sympathies of the working people, whereas the bourgeois civil
      war can attempt to lead part of the masses only by concealing
      its aims; this is the tremendous difference in them as far as
      the class-consciousness of the masses is concerned.

The only objective data on this question seem to be those on
      party affiliation and elections. There do not appear to be any
      other facts which allow a clear judgment of the
      class-consciousness of the masses. It is clear that the
      proletarian-revolutionary movement is represented by the
      Bolshevik Party, and the bourgeois counter-revolutionary
      movement by the Cadet Party, and this can hardly be disputed
      after six months experience of the revolution. Three comparisons
      of a factual nature can be made that concern the question under
      consideration. A comparison of the May elections to the local
      councils in Petrograd with the August elections to the city
      council shows a decrease in Cadet votes and a tremendous
      increase in Bolshevik votes. The Cadet press admits that, as a
      rule, Bolshevism is strong wherever masses of workers or
      soldiers are concentrated.

In the absence of any statistics concerning the fluctuation of
      the party membership, attendance at meetings, etc., the
      conscious support of the party by themassesmay be
      judged only from published data concerning cash collections for
      the party. These data show a tremendous mass-scale heroism on
      the part of worker Bolsheviks in collecting money forPravdafor the papers that have been suppressed, etc. The reports of
      such collections have always been published. Among the Cadets we
      see nothing of the kind; their party work is obviously being
      "nourished" by, contributions from the rich. There is no trace
      of active aid on the part of the masses.

Lastly, a comparison of the movements of April 20-21 and July
      3-4 on the one hand, and the Kornilov revolt on the other, shows
      that the Bolsheviks indicated point-blank to the masses who
      their enemy in the civil war is, namely, the bourgeoisie, the
      landowners and capitalists. The Kornilov revolt has already
      demonstrated that the troops who followed Kornilov did so
      because they had beencompletely deceived,a fact made
      obvious the moment the Savage Division and Kornilov's
      contingents came up against the Petrograd masses.

Furthermore, what data indicate thestrengthof the
      proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the civil war? The Bolsheviks
      are strong only in the numbers and class-consciousness of the
      proletarians, in the sympathy with the Bolshevik slogans
      displayed by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik "rank and
      file" (i.e., workers and poor peasants). It is a fact that these
      slogans actually won over themajorityof the active
      revolutionary masses in Petrograd on April 20-21,[2]June
      18,20 and July 3-4.

A comparison of the data on the "parliamentary" elections and
      the data on the above-named mass movements fully corroborates,
      in respect of Russia, an observation often made in the West,
      namely, that the revolutionary proletariat is incomparablystrongerin theextra-parliamentarythan in
      the parliamentary struggle, as far as influencing themassesand drawing them into the struggle is
      concerned. This is a very important observation in respect of
      civil war.

It is quite clear why in all the circumstances and the entire
      situation of parliamentary struggle and elections the strength
      of the oppressed classes is less than the strength they can
      actually develop in civil war.

The strength of the Cadets and the Kornilov revolt is the
      strength of wealth. The press and a long series of political
      actions show that Anglo-French capital and imperialism arein favorof the Cadets and the Kornilov movement. It is
      common knowledge that the entire Right wing of the Moscow
      Conference21 of August 12 gave frantic support to Kornilov and
      Kaledin. It is common knowledge that the French and British
      bourgeois press "aided" Kornilov. There are indications of his
      having been aided by thebanks.

All the power of wealth stood behind Kornilov—and What a
      miserable and rapid failure! There are only two social forces
      among Kornilov's supporters apart from the wealthy—the
      Savage Division and the Cossacks. In the case of the former it
      isonlythe power of ignorance and deception, and this
      power is the more formidable the longer the press remains in the
      hands of the bourgeoisie. After a victory in the civil war, the
      proletariat would underminethissource of "power" once
      and for all.

As to the Cossacks, they are a section of the population
      consisting of rich, small or medium landed proprietors (the
      average holding is about 50 dessiatines) in one of those
      outlying regions of Russia that have retained many medieval
      traits in their way of life, their economy, and their
      customs. We can regard this as the socio-economic basis for a
      Russian Vendée[3]But what have the facts of the
      Kornilov-Kaledin movement proved? Not even Kaledin, the "beloved
      leader" supported by the Guchkovs, Milyukovs, Ryabushinskys and
      Co., has succeeded in creating a mass movement!! Kaledin marched
      towards civil war much more "directly", much more forthrightly
      than did the Bolsheviks. Kaledin went specifically "to rouse the
      Don", and still he has not aroused a mass movement in his "home"
      region, in a Cossack region far removed from Russian democracy
      in general. On the part of the proletariat, on the contrary, we
      observe spontaneous outbursts of the movement in the very centre
      of the influence and power of anti-Bolshevik, all-Russia
      democracy.

Objective data on the attitude of various strata and economic
      groups of the Cossacks towards democracy and towards the
      Kornilov revolt are lacking. There are only indications to the
      effect that the majority of the poor and middle Cossacks are
      rather inclined towards democracy and that only the officers and
      the top layer of the well-to-do Cossacks are entirely in favour
      of Kornilov.

However that may be, the extreme weakness of a mass Cossack
      movement in favour of a bourgeois counter-revolution has been
      historically proved since the experience of August 26-31.

There remains the last question, that of the tenacity of the
      movement. As far as the Bolshevik, proletarian revolutionary
      movement is concerned, we have proof that the struggle against
      Bolshevism has been conducted during the six months existence of
      a republic in Russia both ideologically, with a gigantic
      preponderance of press organs and propaganda forces on the side
      of the opponents of Bolshevism (even if we risk classing the
      campaign of slander as "ideological" struggle), and by means of
      repressions, which include hundreds of people arrested, our main
      printing-plant demolished, and the chief newspaper and a number
      of other papers suppressed. The result can be seen in the
      facts—a tremendous growth of support for the Bolsheviks in
      the August Petrograd elections, and in both the
      Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik' parties, a strengthening
      of the internationalist and Left trends that are drawing close
      to Bolshevism. This means that the tenacity of the proletarian
      revolutionary movement in republican Russia is very great. The
      facts tell us that the combined efforts of the Cadets, the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks have not succeeded
      in weakening that movement in the least. On the contrary, it was
      the alliance of the Kornilovites with "democracy" that
      strengthened Bolshevism. The only possible means of struggle
      against the proletarian revolutionary trend are ideological
      influence and repressions.

Data on the tenacity of the Cadet-Kornilov movement are still
      lacking. The Cadets have suffered no persecution at all. Even
      Guchkov has been set free and Maklakov and Milyukov were not
      even arrested. Rech has not been suppressed. The Cadets are
      being spared. The Kornilovite Cadets are being courted by
      Kerensky's government. Suppose we put it this way: assuming that
      the Anglo-French and the Russian Ryabushinskys will give
      millions and millions more to the Cadets, toYedinstvo,Dyen,etc., for the new election campaign in Petrograd, is it probable
      that the number of their votes will now increase, after the
      Kornilov revolt? Judging by meetings, etc., the answer to this
      question can hardly be anything but negative.

Summing up the results of the analysis in which we compared the
      data furnished by the history of the Russian revolution, we
      arrive at the conclusion that the beginning of the proletariat's
      civil war has revealed the strength, the class-consciousness,
      deep-rootedness, growth, and tenacity of the movement. The
      beginning of the bourgeoisie's civil war has revealed no
      strength, no class-consciousness among the masses, no depth
      whatsoever, no chance of victory.

The alliance of the Cadets with the Socialist-Revolutionaries
      and Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks, i.e., against the
      revolutionary proletariat, has been tried in practice for a
      number of months, and this alliance of the temporarily disguised
      Kornilovites with the "democrats" has actually strengthened and
      not weakened the Bolsheviks, and led to the collapse of the
      "alliance", and to the strengthening of the Left opposition
      among the Mensheviks.

An alliance of the Bolsheviks with the Socialist-Revolutionaries
      and Mensheviks against the Cadets, against the bourgeoisie, has
      not yet been tried; or, to be more precise, such an alliance has
      been tried on one front only, for five days only, from August 26
      to August 31, the period of the Kornilov revolt, and this
      alliance at that time scored a victory over the
      counter-revolution with an ease never yet achieved in any
      revolution; it was such a crushing suppression of the bourgeois,
      landowners', capitalist, Allied-imperialist and Cadet
      counter-revolution, that the civil war from that side ceased to
      exist, was a mere nothing from the very outset, collapsed before
      any "battle" had taken place.

In the face of this historic fact the entire bourgeois press and
      all its chorus (the Plekhanovs, Potresovs, Breshko
      Breshkovskayas, etc.) are shouting with all their might that an
      alliance of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries "threatens" the horrors of civil war!

This would be funny, if it were not so sad. It is sad indeed
      that such an open, self-evident, glaring absurdity, such a
      flouting of the facts of the whole history of our revolution,
      can still find listeners.... This only proves that the selfish
      bourgeois lie is still widespread (and this cannot be avoided as
      long as the press is monopolised by the bourgeoisie), a lie that
      shouts down and drowns the most undoubted, palpably obvious
      lessons of the revolution.

If there is an absolutely undisputed lesson of the revolution,
      one fully proved by facts, it is that only an alliance of the
      Bolsheviks with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
      only an immediate transfer of all power to the Soviets would
      make civil war in Russia impossible, for a civil war begun by
      the bourgeoisie against such an alliance, against the Soviets of
      Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, is inconceivable;
      such a "war~~ would not last even until the first battle; the
      bourgeoisie, for the second time since the Kornilov revolt,
      would not be able to move even the Savage Division, or the
      former number of Cossack units against the Soviet Government!

The peaceful development of any revolution is, generally
      speaking, extremely rare and difficult, because revolution is
      the maximum exacerbation of the sharpest class contradictions;
      but in a peasant country, at a time when a union of the
      proletariat with the peasantry can give peace to people worn out
      by a most unjust and criminal war, when that union can give the
      peasantry all the land, in that country, at that exceptional
      moment in history, a peaceful development of the revolution is
      possible and probable if all power is transferred to the
      Soviets. The struggle of parties for power within the Soviets
      may proceed peacefully, if the Soviets are made fully
      democratic, and "petty thefts" and violations of democratic
      principles, such as giving the soldiers one representative to
      every five hundred, while the workers have one representative to
      every thousand voters, are eliminated. In a democratic republic
      such petty thefts will have to disappear.

When confronted with Soviets that have given all the land to the
      peasants without compensation and offer a just peace to all the
      peoples—when confronted with such Soviets the alliance of
      the British, French and Russian bourgeoisie, the Kornilovs,
      Buchanans,[4]Ryabushinskys, Milyukovs, Plekhanovs,
      and Potresovs is quite impotent and is not to be feared.

The bourgeoisie's resistance to the transfer of the land to the
      peasants without compensation, to similar reforms in other
      realms of life, to a just peace and a break with imperialism,
      is, of course, inevitable. But for such resistance to reach the
      stage of civil war, masses of some kind are necessary, masses
      capable of fighting and vanquishing the Soviets. The bourgeoisie
      does not have these masses, and has nowhere to get them. The
      sooner and the more resolutely the Soviets take all power, the
      sooner both Savage Divisions and Cossacks will split into an
      insignificant minority of politically-conscious Kornilov
      supporters and a huge majority of those in favour of a
      democratic and socialist (for it is with socialism that we shall
      then be dealing) alliance of workers and peasants.

When power passes to the Soviets, the resistance of the
      bourgeoisie will result in scores and hundreds of workers and
      peasants "keeping track of", supervising, controlling, and
      registering every single capitalist, for the interests of the
      workers and peasants will demand struggle against the
      capitalists' deception of the people. The forms and methods of
      this accountancy and control have been developed and simplified
      by capitalism itself, by such capitalist creations as banks, big
      factories, trusts, railways, the post office, consumers'
      societies, and trade unions. If the Soviets punish those
      capitalists who evade the most detailed accounting or who
      deceive the people, punish them by confiscating all their
      property and arresting them for a short time, that will be
      sufficient to break all the resistance of the bourgeoisie by
      bloodless means. For it is through the banks, once they are
      nationalised, through the unions of employees, through t.he post
      office, the consumers' societies, and the trade unions, that
      control and the accounting will become universal, all-powerful,
      and irresistible.

And Russia's Soviets, the alliance of her workers and poor
      peasants, are not alone in the steps they take towards
      socialism. If we were alone, we should not be able to accomplish
      this task peacefully, for it is essentially an international
      task. But we have enormous reserves, the armies of the most
      advanced workers in other countries, where Russia's break with
      imperialism and the imperialist war will inevitably accelerate
      the workers' socialist revolution that is maturing.

*    *    *

Some speak about "rivers of blood" in a civil war. This is
      mentioned in the resolution of the Kornilovite Cadets quoted
      above. This phrase is repeated in a thousand ways by all the
      bourgeois and opportunists. Since the Kornilov revolt all the
      class-conscious workers laugh, will continue to laugh and cannot
      help laughing at it.

However, the question of "rivers of blood" in the present time
      of war can and must be studied by an approximate computation of
      forces, consequences, and results; it must be taken seriously
      and not as an empty stock phrase, not as simply the hypocrisy of
      the Cadets, who have done everything in their power to enable
      Kornilov to drown Russia in "rivers of blood", and to restore
      the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the power of the
      landowners, and the monarchy.

"Rivers of blood," they say. Let us analyse this aspect of the
      question as well.

Let us assume that the vacillations of the Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries continue; that these parties do not
      hand over power to the Soviets; that they do not overthrow
      Kerensky; that they restore the old rotten compromise with the
      bourgeoisie in a somewhat different form (say, "non-partisan"
      Kornilovites instead of Cadets); that they do not replace the
      apparatus of state power by the Soviet apparatus, do not offer
      peace, do not break with imperialism, and do not confiscate the
      landed estates. Let us assume that this is the outcome of the
      present wavering of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
      Mensheviks, of this present "September 12".

The experience of our own revolution tells us most clearly that
      the consequence of this would be a still further weakening of
      the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, their further
      separation from the masses, an incredible growth of indignation
      and bitterness among the masses, a tremendous growth of sympathy
      with the revolutionary proletariat, with the Bolsheviks.

Under such conditions, the proletariat of the capital will be
      still closer to a Commune, to a workers' uprising, to the
      conquest of power, to a civil war in its highest and most
      decisive form, than it is at present; after the experience of
      April 20-21 and July 3-4 such a result must be recognised as
      historically inevitable.

"Rivers of blood," shout the Cadets. But such rivers of blood
      would give victory to the proletariat and the poor peasantry,
      and it is a hundred to one that this victory would bring peace
      in place of the imperialist war, i.e., that it would save the
      lives of hundreds of thousands of men who are now shedding their
      blood for the sake of a division of spoils and seizures
      (annexations) by the capitalists. If April 20-21 had ended by
      the transfer of all power to the Soviets, and the Bolsheviks in
      alliance with the poor peasantry had won in the Soviets, it
      would have saved the lives of the half million Russian soldiers,
      who certainly perished in the battles of June 18, even if it had
      cost "rivers of blood".

This is how every class-conscious Russian worker and soldier
      figures, this is how he must figure, if he weighs and analyses
      the question of civil war now being raised everywhere; and, of
      course, such a worker or soldier, who has experienced many
      things and given thought to them, will not be frightened by the
      cries of "rivers of blood" raised by individuals, parties and
      groups willing to sacrifice more millions of Russian soldiers
      for the sake of Constantinople, Lvov, Warsaw, and "victory over
      Germany".

No "rivers of blood" in an internal civil war can even
      approximately equal those seas of blood which the Russian
      imperialists have shed since June 19 (in spite of the very great
      chances they had of avoiding this by handing over power to the
      Soviets).

All you Milyukovs, Potresovs and Plekhanovs be careful about
      your arguments against "rivers of blood" in civil war while this
      present war continues, for the soldiers have seen seas of blood
      and know what they mean.

The international situation of the Russian revolution now, in
      1917, the fourth year of a terrifically burdensome and criminal
      war, that has worn out the peoples, is such that an offer of a
      just peace on the part of a Russian proletariat victorious in
      the civil war would have a hundred to one chance of achieving an
      armistice and peace without the shedding of further seas of
      blood.

For a combination of warring Anglo-French and German imperialism
      against the proletarian socialist Russian Republic is impossible
      in practice, while a combination of British, Japanese and
      American imperialism against us is extremely difficult to
      realise and is not at all dangerous to us, if only because of
      Russia's geographical position. On the other hand, the existence
      of revolutionary and socialist proletarian masses in all the
      European states is a fact; the maturing and the inevitability of
      the worldwide socialist revolution is beyond doubt, and such a
      revolution can be seriously aided only by the progress of the
      Russian revolution and not by delegations and not by playing at
      Stockholm conferences with the foreign Plekhanovs or Tseretelis.

The bourgeoisie wails about the inevitable defeat of a Commune
      in Russia, i.e., defeat of the proletariat if it were to conquer
      power.

These are false, selfish class wailings.

If the proletariat gains power it will have every chance of
      retaining it and of leading Russia until there is a victorious
      revolution in the West.

In the first place, we have learned much since the Commune, and
      we would not repeat its fatal errors, we would not leave the
      banks in the hands of the bourgeoisie, we would not confine
      ourselves to defence against the Versaillais (or the
      Kornilovites) but would take the offensive against them and
      crush them.

Secondly, the victorious proletariat would give Russia peace,
      and no power on earth would be able to overthrow a government of
      peace, a government of an honest, sincere, just peace, after all
      the horrors of more than three years butchery of the peoples.

Thirdly, the victorious proletariat would give the peasantry the
      land immediately and without compensation. And a tremendous
      majority of the peasantry—worn out and embittered by the
      "playing around with the landowners" practised by our
      government, particularly the coalition government, particularly
      the Kerensky government—would support the victorious
      proletariat absolutely, unreservedly, with every means in its
      power.

You Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries are all talking
      about the "heroic efforts" of the people. Only recently I came
      across this phrase for the nth time in the leading article of
      yourIzvestiaof the Central Executive Committee. With you it is a mere
      phrase. But the workers and peasants read it and think about it,
      and such deliberation—reinforced by the experience of the
      Kornilov revolt, by the "experience" of Peshekhonov's ministry,
      by the "experience" of Chernov's ministry, and so
      forth—every such deliberation inevitably leads to the
      conclusion that this "heroic effort" is nothing but confidence
      of the poor peasantry in the city workers as their most faithful
      allies and leaders. The heroic effort is nothing but the victory
      of the Russian proletariat over the bourgeoisie in civil war,
      for such a victory alone will save the country from painful
      vacillations, it alone will show the way out, it alone will give
      land and peace.

If an alliance between the city workers and the poor peasantry
      can be effected through an immediate transfer of power to the
      Soviets, so much the better. The Bolsheviks will do everything
      to secure this peaceful development of the revolution. Without
      this, even the Constituent Assembly, by itself, will not save
      the situation, for even there the Socialist-Revolutionaries may
      continue their "playing" at agreements with the Cadets, with
      Breshko-Breshkovskaya and Kerensky (in what way are they better
      than Cadets?), and so on, and so forth.

If even the experience of the Kornilov revolt has taught the
      "democrats" nothing, and they continue the destructive policy of
      vacillation and compromise, we say that nothing is more ruinous
      to the proletarian revolution than these vacillations. That
      being the case, do not frighten us, gentlemen, with civil
      war. Civil war is inevitable, if you do not wish to break with
      Kornilovism and the "coalition" right now, once and for
      all. This war will bring victory over the exploiters, it will
      give the land to the peasants, it will give peace to the
      peoples, it will open the right road to the victorious
      revolution of the world socialist proletariat.

[1]The
      reference is to the following facts. On April 20 (May 3), the
      newspapers carried a note from Foreign Minister Milyukov to the
      Allied Governments in which the Provisional Government
      reaffirmed its intention to honour all the treaties of the
      Tsarist government and to carry on the war to a victorious
      end. There was massive indignation over this imperialist policy,
      and on April 21 (May 4), the workers of Petrograd responded to a
      call issued by the Bolshevik Party and downed tools. They staged
      a demonstration which demanded peace and was attended by more
      than 100,000 workers and soldiers. Protest demonstrations were
      also staged in Moscow, the Urals, the Ukraine, Kronstadt and
      other towns and districts. Resolutions protesting against
      Milyukov's note were received by the Petrograd Soviet from many
      urban Soviets.  The April demonstration led to a government
      crisis. Mass pressure forced Milyukov and Guchkov to resign from
      the Cabinet. The first coalition government was formed on May 5
      (18), and consisted of 10 capitalist ministers and leaders of
      the parties collaborating with them, namely, Kerensky and
      Chernov from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party; Tsereteli and
      Skobelev from the Mensheviks, etc. The bourgeois government was
      saved by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks who
      openly sided with the bourgeoisie.

[2]On
      June 9 (22), 1917, the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets
      prohibited the demonstration set by the Bolshevik Central
      Committee for June 10 (23). The decision to stage the
      demonstration was adopted at an enlarged meeting of the Central
      Committee and the Petrograd Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)
      together with delegates from the districts, army units, trade
      unions and factory committees. The demonstration was to have
      shown the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets that the
      Petrograd workers and soldiers wanted the Soviets to take all
      state power. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries
      decided to prevent the demonstration from taking place and
      pushed a resolution through congress to that effect. The
      Bolshevik Central Committee did not wish to oppose the Congress
      decision and at Lenin's suggestion withdrew its decision on the
      night of June 9 (22). Members of the Central Committee Petrograd
      Committee, and Party activists went to the factories and
      barracks to convince the workers and soldiers to stay in. Their
      efforts were successful and the workers and soldiers agreed that
      a demonstration would be badly timed.  The Menshevik and
      Socialist-Revolutionary leadership of the Congress of Soviets
      decided to stage a demonstration on June 18 (July 30) as an
      expression of confidence in the Provisional Government .  Lenin
      led the Central and Petrograd Committees in a great effort to
      prepare a demonstration showing the true feelings of the
      masses. On the eve of the demonstration, June 17 (30),Pravdacarried an appeal from the Central Committee,
      the Petrograd Committee, the Central Committee's Military
      Organisation, and the Central Council of Factory Committees
      calling on the people to demonstrate the strength of the
      revolution. Some 500,000 workers and soldiers took part in the
      demonstration on June 18 (July 1), with the overwhelming
      majority carrying the revolutionary slogans of the Bolshevik
      Party. Only a small group carried the slogans of the
      collaborating parties, which urged support for the Provisional
      Government. The demonstration showed the mounting revolutionary
      activity of the masses and the Bolshevik Party's growing
      influence, it was a great victory for the Bolshevik Party. It
      showed that the masses put no trust in the Provisional
      Government, and the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary policy
      of collaborating with the bourgeoisie.

[3]Vendée—a province in France, which was a
      hotbed of counter-revolution during the French bourgeois
      revolution at the end of the 18th century. The backward peasants
      of the Vendée, who were strongly influenced by the Catholic
      clergy, were a tool in the hands of the counter-revolutionaries
      in their fight against revolutionary France.

[4]Buchanan—(1855-1924)—British diplomat and
      ambassador to Russia
      (1910-1918). He helped the reactionaries in their
      anti-revolutionary fight and in August 1917 gave support to
      Kornilov's counter-revolutionary revolt.